The Golden State Warriors cruised to a 113-91 victory over the Cleveland Cavaliers in game one of the NBA Finals. The much anticipated--and unprecedented--Finals "trilogy" of two teams meeting three years in a row on the sport's biggest stage became an anticlimactic rout in the third quarter after a relatively competitive first half. Kevin Durant was the best player on the court, by far, leading the Warriors with a game-high 38 points plus eight rebounds and eight assists; he scored inside, outside and everywhere in between while also doing work as a rebounder, playmaker and defender. He had more dunks (six) than the Warriors had turnovers (four, tying a Finals single game record). Durant posted a +16 plus/minus number and did not have a single turnover despite his significant duties as scorer/ballhandler/distributor. Stephen Curry also played very well, scoring 28 points, dishing for a game-high 10 assists and grabbing six rebounds. Curry's plus/minus number (+20) led both teams. Klay Thompson and Draymond Green both shot poorly but they contributed to a stifling Golden State defense that held the Cavaliers to .349 field goal shooting while forcing 20 turnovers.
The biggest story of the game other than Durant's performance is that the Warriors were much more physical than the Cavaliers. It is almost inevitable that in the first few minutes of game two we will see a hard foul or even a flagrant foul by the Cavaliers in an attempt to assert their physical presence in this series. In game one, the Cavaliers played with regular season intensity while the Warriors looked like a team on a mission to win a championship.
The difference in physicality had a lot to do with Cleveland losing the possession game; the Cavaliers actually won the rebounding battle 59-50 (though it did not "feel" that way when watching the game) but they committed 20 turnovers, which is one reason that the Warriors launched 106 field goal attempts compared to just 86 field goal attempts for the Cavaliers. Cleveland held Golden State to .425 field goal shooting but those turnovers (plus the 14 offensive rebounds the Cavaliers allowed) gave the Warriors many extra possessions. The Warriors are difficult to beat under any circumstances but they are probably impossible to beat if they win the possession game by such a lopsided margin.
LeBron James remains the most enigmatic Pantheon player. He has led his teams to eight NBA Finals--but he has lost game one seven times and has won just three of those series. The game one winner ultimately wins the series over 80% of the time in the NBA, so losing the first game places a team at a serious disadvantage. James filled up the box score in game one (28 points, 15 rebounds, eight assists) but he--more than any other superstar who I have observed--has the propensity to produce large numbers that seem small; by the "eye test" he just did not have much impact on the outcome of the game and that subjective evaluation is backed up to some extent by the plus/minus numbers, as James had the worst plus/minus (-22) of any player on either team. James also had eight turnovers, so he played a significant role in the Cavaliers losing the possession game.
James' supporters will say that game one was an example of a great player doing everything that he could but just not having enough help; that is always the rallying cry for James' supporters: he would win the title every year if only he had enough help--but something does not add up in this equation. James is supposed to be the best player in the league, by far, and some people are even comparing him favorably to Michael Jordan (which really needs to stop; as several sensible people have noted, let James surpass Kobe Bryant first before we even bring up Jordan's name). James has two current All-Stars, plus former All-Stars and playoff-tested veterans coming off of the bench to help him now; in Miami, James had two future Hall of Famers (three if you count Ray Allen, a role player by that time) helping him and he still lost twice in the Finals in four tries. How much help does Michael Jordan's supposed peer need in order to win a championship? Kobe Bryant won two of his five championships with nothing more than Pau Gasol (a one-time All-Star before he joined forces with Bryant) and a bunch of role players, many of whom were soon out of the league--and for one of those titles Bryant's Lakers took down a Boston team featuring three future Hall of Famers. Dirk Nowitzki beat LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh in the 2011 NBA Finals with a supporting cast of two past their prime former All-Stars (Jason Kidd, Shawn Marion) and some solid role players (Tyson Chandler, Jason Terry, J.J. Barea).
Kyrie Irving (24 points on 10-22 field goal shooting) and Kevin Love (15 points, 21 rebounds, three blocked shots) both played well in game one, so it is not like James is one man against the world here. The Cavaliers' problem is that they treated the regular season like a joke and they believed that they could turn up their defensive intensity by flipping the proverbial switch. That worked during the Eastern Conference playoffs but it will not work in the NBA Finals--and that tone of deciding which games to take seriously and which games to blow off is set by the team's best player. Jordan and Bryant treated every game like a supreme individual and collective challenge, a veritable war--and they made sure that their teammates had a similar mindset. James is just not wired that way.
I understand that the Warriors are a great team but there is no reason for the Cavaliers to lose by more than 20 points. There is no reason for James to commit twice as many turnovers as the opposing team or for James to be outplayed at both ends of the court by his primary matchup, Durant.
This series is not over--at least not yet. The Cavaliers will be more physical in game two and they may very well seize homecourt advantage. Even if they lose game two, they proved last year that they can overcome a deficit, as they bounced back from trailing 0-2 and then 1-3 to eventually beat the Warriors. Of course, such an improbable comeback is even less likely this year now that the Warriors have added Durant to the mix--but James is always the main story in any game or series. Will he assert his will and dominate the proceedings the way that Pantheon players do in the Finals? As I have often stated when writing about Jordan, Bryant, James and other all-time greats, this is not about numbers--it is about impact. When Michael Jordan played in the NBA Finals, no one doubted who was the best player on the court--and the same is true for most other Pantheon players (unless they were facing another Pantheon player and I am not quite ready to put Durant in that club just yet). For all of James' wonderful accomplishments and despite his gaudy Finals numbers, it is far too often not clear that he is the best player on the court when the championship trophy is up for grabs.
The Cavaliers kept game one close for the first half. If they execute at both ends of the court--specifically, cut down the turnovers, stop giving up so many offensive rebounds and attack the hoop on offense--then they absolutely can compete with and even beat the Warriors. James has to set the tone, though, and in game one the Cavaliers followed his lead on offense (too many turnovers) and on defense (poor execution individually and collectively).
Durant Dominates as Warriors Rout Cavaliers, 113-91
